E 559 
■ H64 

Copy I 



\)^ cuU^vi-hoXcryv j 1870, 




Glass L-iiS 

Book- 



T II E 



UNION RECORD 

LP- 

OF 

Hon. Joshua Hill 

OF GEORGIA. 



A LETTER IN REPLY TO HIS ENEMIES. 



« i » 



Washington, D. C. 

GIBSON BROTHERS, PRINTERS. 

1870. 



LETTER 



Hon. JOSHUA HILL, of Georgia, 



ELECTION OF U. S. SENATORS. 



superstitious." It so happened that I had been warned — 
and that, not in a dream, but with my eyes and ears open, at 
least one week before the first meeting of the legislature — that 
a shrewd and knowing politician predicted the election of 
Alexander H. Stephens and Herschel Y. Johnson as Senators. 
I never forgot the prophecy, nor ceased entirely to look for 
its fulfilment. It at least broke my fall, and, I think, made 
James Johnson's descent easier. Speaking of prophets, 
gentlemen, hereafter commend me to this political diviner. 
You cannot make less of it than a curious coincidence. 

Some, to whom this fortune-telling had been communi- 
cated, and who may be too appreciative of a jest, regarded 
the animated contest between Messrs. Gartrell and Peeples 
as the best joke of the session. It reminded old turfmen of 
a gallantly contested four-mile race, with broken heats ; and 
the cheers of the crowd, as the fleet steeds came, neck-and- 
neck, thundering down the last quarter-stretch, were almost 
audible. But the gallant contestants were, in the end, re- 
minded of that beautiful Scriptural aphorism, " the race is 
not to the swift." They both ran well, and each was nigh 
the goal, but it was never intended (at least so thought fa- 
talists and predestinarians) that either should win. 

You attack my pretensions to loyalty to the Government 
of the United States, and demand, with an air of triumph, 
" What is the plea of loyalty set up by Mr. Hill? " You 
then proceed to contrast my poor efforts to save the Union to 
the Herculean labors of Mr. Stephens to preserve it, and suc- 
ceed in convincing yourselves that Mr. Stephens has the 
better record. I never doubted its suiting you better, nor 
questioned that Jefferson Davis' record pleases many of you 
better still. Mr. Davis is entitled to all the credit that at- 
taches to unflinching devotion to a cause that he consented 
to embrace and defend. Had I loved the cause, I could but 
have honored his constancy and determination. I never re- 
garded the cause and the South as synonymous. I could 
not look upon the rebellion with favor when I felt that it 
was absolute ruin to the South and a curse upon my whole 
country. 

It is surely no fault of mine that gentlemen should refuse 
to read my reported speeches and published letters. Had 
they done so they would now remember the uniformity of 
sentiment pervading them, and their ardent nationality. 
This is characteristic of all I said or wrote during my public 
service. But I am aware that I never had any particular 



The following letter is republished by me without the 
knowledge of Mr. Hill. He has had nothing to do, directly 
or indirectly, with its republication. I was taught to love 
the Union men of the South who suffered so much for the 
cause so dear to those of us who fought in the Union army. 

I earnestly request all Republican Senators to read it care- 
fully, that they may know something of the true Unionism 
of Mr. Hill. The letter was written by him in 1866 in an- 
swer to a letter written and published by his enemies. 

J. E. BRYANT, 

Late Brevet Lt. Col. 8lh Maine Infa?itry. 
National Hotel, 

Washington, D. C, March 10, 1870. 



REPLY OF HON. JOSHUA HILL 
To the Sixty-nine Special Legislative Friends of Hon. A. II Stephens. 

Gentlemen — I have read your review of me and my recent 
speech on the Senatorial election. I have never had a news- 
paper controversy, nor have I the slightest desire for' one. 
In your case, I would naturally seek to avoid "the war of 
the many with one," if for no other reason than the great dis- 
parity of numbers. 

You have entered into an elaborate argument to prove 
that I was wrong in saying of Mr. Stephens that, under the 
circumstances, he could not escape a suspicion of having en- 
couraged his election to the Senate. You say, after present- 
ing your array of facts, that " Mr. Hill must fall back upon 
his judgment as being biased by his attitude." I admit I 
am not infallible. I may be obtuse. Whatever may be the 
general effect of your reasoning and facts, I cannot help 
thinking that some, more incredulous than the rest, will 
attribute to Mr. Stephens the amiable weakness of being too 
easily " over-persuaded." He did not refuse the high office 
as often as Caesar did the "■ kingly crown/' and yet Ca?sar 
was slain for his ambition. But there was but one Anthony 
importuning Ca3sar. 

Unlike the men of Athens, I am not, " in all things, too 



8 

to ray character and feelings, I am greatly indebted for 
marked courtesy and kindness. 

Every man in Georgia, of ordinary intelligence, knows 
that I have been looked upon with distrust and unkindness, 
and am yet, for my attachment to the Union. How many 
of you have denounced me for my national principles? 
Which of you have censured Mr. Stephens for his abandon- 
ment of his opposition to secession, and for consenting to 
serve in the Provisional Congress at Montgomery, or for ac- 
cepting the office of Vice-President of the Confederate States? 
Which of you blamed him for giving his counsel and per- 
sonal influence to the rebel cause? When was it that you 
complained of him for encouraging the people to further ex- 
ertion to obtain a separate nationality and independence ? 
Let us be candid with each other, gentlemen. Do you not 
love and admire him more for his identification with the 
cause of disunion, and his consequent sufferings and impris- 
onment, than for his " early disrelish " of secession ? I had 
come near saying, of the doctrine of secession. I am not 
aware that either of your Senators-elect has, at any time, de- 
nied the right of a State to secede, though both have con- 
demned the exercise of the right for insufficient cause. I 
would not knowingly do either of them injustice. But what 
if they still hold that a State may of right secede ? Do you 
condemn them for maintaining the opinion? 

I have never sought to depreciate the effort of Mr. Ste- 
phens before the legislature in 1860, to prevent secession. 
It was meritorious. But I did complain at the time, and 
have continued to complain, that he did not refuse to sign 
the ordinance of secession, then move to refer it to the people, 
and, upon the refusal of the majority, to submit it to the 
popular vote, then call upon the friends of the people to 
withdraw with him from the convention. Years ago I ex- 
pressed to Hon. B. H. Hill my regrets that he himself did 
not take that course. 

It is not pleasant to advert to it, even at this distance of 
time ; but the truth of history demands it. What public 
man, of all Georgia, besides myself, was publicly burned in 
effigy in more places than one in his own State, soon after 
the fatal act of secession was adopted? Think you it was 
because I favored disunion ? Was that then regarded a 
crime? What secessionist was treated in like manner? 
Was Mr. Stephens the object of such contempt ? To which 
of you am I under obligations for denouncing such unjustifi- 



claims upon the public regard, further than being esteemed 
somewhat above that contemptible tiling, a professional poli- 
tician, in independence and candor. I never sought to win 
notoriety in any manner. Unlike some of whom I wot, I 
was not ashamed of the position of a private gentleman, liv- 
ing secluded from the world, and but little known beyond 
the small circle of friends surrounding me. And if a single 
one of you imagine that my election to the Senate would, in 
my own opinion, "add a cubit to my stature," or for an 
hour increase my vanity, you know little of me. 

No ; I have weighed " the glittering bauble," Fame, and 
for long years have been accustomed to say of it, that any- 
thing less than the reputation of Clay or Webster is not 
worth seeking. 

Such reflections as these, aided, perhaps, by the severe 
teachings of misfortune, have enabled me to bear up under 
the frowns of former friends, and — 

"To suffer 
The stings and arrows of outrageous fortune," 

without repining. 

For me to undertake to convince you that I loathed and 
abhorred disunion or secession, and that I never failed to 
rebuke it when I came to speak or write of it, would be to 
make myself ridiculous ; and to acknowledge that your esti- 
mate of the value of my opinions is the universal one. As 
highly as I respect you, I cannot consent to abide your judg- 
ment of my insignificance. 

As for my .recognized devotion to the Union, it was a fact 
fixed in the minds of such men as John J. Crittenden, Ste- 
phen A. Douglas, James Pearce, and Henry Winter Davis, 
all of whom, "had they but served their God with half the 
zeal" they served their country, would now be, as I hope 
they are, bright angels in a better world. And of the liv- 
ing, let me name John Sherman of Ohio, Gen. John A. 
Logan, Charles F. Adams, Dawes, Thayer, Mr. Seward, and 
Morrill, and, I might add, all who knew me or observed my 
political course. 

In the midst of the bloodiest scenes of the wicked and 
causeless war through which we have passed, it was a source 
of heartfelt comfort and consolation, "when my household 
gods lay shivered around me," to know that I was still 
cherished as the friend of the Union by my old associates 
throughout the nation. And to that settled conviction, as 



able and vindictive displays of feeling towards me? I pray 
you make me sensible of my indebtedness, that I may thank 
you. Was it for my inertness in the* defence of the Union, 
that I was thus contemned and despised by infuriated mobs ? 
No ; the friends of true liberty and order are never demon- 
strative ; they are quiet and thoughtful. And to that one 
great, natural truth is this country indebted for the blight- 
ing curse of secession. It was not numbers, but the concen- 
tration of passion and prejudice, and the rabid spirit of in- 
tolerance, that effected disunion. 

Had the honest, laboring masses, even of South Carolina, 
been appealed to as rational beings, and told by their public 
men that the State desired a calm expression of the popular 
will as to the propriety of disunion, and that he who voted 
for the Union was to be regarded as the equal in courage, 
devotion to the State, and every element of manliness of him 
who favored disunion, I feel confident the unwise step would 
never have been taken. 

Pardon me if I show some anxiety to refute the prevailing 
idea of your letter, to wit : that I, at best, was a mere pas- 
sive friend of the Union, of doubtful character, while Mr. 
Stephens was enthusiastic and devoted. I did not begin to 
make Union speeches in 1860. I began five years before 
that, in denunciation of that unfortunate measure, known as 
the Kansas bill — the greatest blunder, except, perhaps, the 
defeat of the Clayton compromise, ever made in American 
politics. I made no other but Union speeches from that 
time to this day. 

I made many very thorough speeches in 1859 and 1860 ; 
several in the autumn of 1860, in Georgia, all of which ap- 
pealed to the people to submit quietly and peaceably, as 
good citizens, to the probable election of Mr. Lincoln. I an- 
swered Mr. Win, L. Yancey, who was regarded pretty gen- 
erally as a respectable advocate of disunion. We both spoke 
in the State House of Maryland about the last of September, 
I860. The next evening I spoke to many thousands in Bal- 
timore, from the same stand with Governor Swann, Senator 
Kennedy and Representative Webster. The press said it 
was a Union speech, and complimented it very highly. Two 
days afterwards I addressed a large meeting in Washington 
city, as many can testify. But, of course, you never heard 
anything of all this, and refused to listen to anything I said. 
I received some substantial testimonials of regard from a 
Boston gentleman, for my reply to Mr. Yancey. You may 



10 

not know it, but I can assure you that the great orator of 
Alabama was quite as earnest in his declamation as was 
Mr. Toombs, and altogether as powerful. I never claimed 
any more credit for " measuring arms with the great orator 
on that occasion" than I have for discussing with Mr. 
Toombs or Mr. Stephens. I never heard any one compli- 
ment Hon. B. H. Hill on his exhibition of nerve for raising 
his voice in favor of the then despised Union. I believe no 
one was killed or hurt for doing it. On the contrary, I have 
heard that such was the courtesy of the excited period that 
Mr. Toombs himself, at the close of Mr. Stephens' speech, 
called for three cheers for the gifted orator, which were freely 
given. 

I wrote a letter in December, 1860, over my own name, 
published in the Southern Recorder, first urging the people 
to require pledges of their delegates, in writing, before elect- 
ing them, to submit the action of the Convention to the pop- 
ular vote, in which I was severe on secession. But it es- 
caped your attention — like all my labors. 

Some of you are aware that I am a member, of the still ex- 
isting State Convention. I committed a grave error in that 
body in consenting to abandon my announced intention to 
insist on a reconsideration of the vote adopting the ordinance 
repealing the ordinance of secession, for the purpose of de- 
claring said ordinance "absolutely null and void." I gave, 
at the time, my reasons, abating nothing of my principles 
and opinions, but reluctantly yielding to the solicitations of 
friends of the Union, and being auxious to avoid discussion 
calculated to produce discord and bitterness. 

Had I reflected properly on the sustaining effect of the 
word " repeal " upon the doctrine of secession — the right of 
a State to secede from the Union — and, as a consequence, the 
legality of all indebtedness incurred by such State for the 
prosecution of a war in defence of the right of secession, I 
conld not have been induced to forego my purpose. I could 
not have obtained a majority for the support of my views. 
It was manifest that a majority were opposed to the repudia- 
tion of the war debt, and that it was only carried by some 
yielding to the requirements of the president, and a greater 
number remaining silent. 

To yield the willing assent of the mind, unreservedly, to 
the absolute nullity of every act of every representative body, 
intended to sustain, in any manner, the rebellion, is to reject 
the whole doctrine of secession. Until this is done, there is 



11 

no repudiation of the abominable heresy. It is a question of 
the highest importance to the people of the entire Union, 
that a distinct and emphatic renunciation of the doctrine of 
secession by States that have resorted to it to destroy the 
Union should precede the return of such States to a position 
of equality in the Union with unoffending States. The folly 
of restoring a State to the Union, with the boasted right of 
secession unimpaired, and still maintained and defended by 
its prominent officers, by a majority of the delegates of a con- 
vention of the people, and by a majority of the legislature, 
can only be equalled by an amendment of the Federal Con- 
stitution, expressly admitting the right of a State, for any 
cause in its own judgment sufficient, to withdraw from the 
Union. 

This doctrine of secession, despite the mischiefs and mis- 
eries it has produced is this day, I fear, more generally tol- 
erated, if not entertained, by the people of Georgia than it 
was when it was reduced to practice. The mass of mankind 
have neither leisure nor patience to investigate any great 
principle of government. They are oftener influenced by 
arguments that appeal to their feelings and interests than 
to their abstract sense of right. Many favored secession 
just as some others opposed it, because they believed their 
action beneficial to themselves. The rebellion has proven 
a failure up to this time, but most of its devotees yet believe 
it was right, and that had it not been crushed by numbers, 
they would have realized all they were promised. On the 
other hand, thousands of earnest opponents of secession who 
have suffered deeply by loss of fortune, and were made 
wretched by the bloody casualties of war, have relaxed in 
their feelings, and are by no means pertinacious in main- 
taining their former opinions. Men of sagacity, fond of the 
adulation of their fellows, and ambitious of place, know well 
this state of public feeling, and either sympathize with it, or 
allow it to exist without attempting to correct it. To be 
sure, there are prominent individual exceptions to this rule, 
but not sufficient to effect a change. Many limit their politi- 
cal vision to the boundaries of the State — -content to shape 
its internal polity — without special regard for its Federal 
relations. 

It is refreshing, in this dearth of sober reasoning, to find 
some of the foremost intellects that contributed all their 
powers to aid disunion, now openly proclaiming their op- 
position to the madness that would assert the right of the 



12 

State to be represented in Congress by just such individuals 
as the people or their representatives might prefer, wholly 
regardless of their past history. These gentlemen perceive 
plainly that they themselves, though heretofore often hon- 
ored by the people with the highest trusts, are, by reason of 
their identification with secession and war, no longer proper 
instruments to be chosen to restore cordial relations between 
the State and national authorities. Recognizing secession 
as a failure, and a principle to be forever rebuked, they now 
express a willingness to be considered as no longer available 
public men, and to retire from the political arena, yielding 
to such as may be more agreeable on account of their politi- 
cal action to the Federal Government, and consequently 
more useful to the State. This is the beginning of wisdom. 
Do you agree with me in my estimate of such conduct? 
What think you of such modesty and self-denial? These 
gentlemen found no difficulty in restraining their friends 
from wantonly voting for them. 

What though you insist that all differences of opinion as 
to past political events should be consigned to oblivion, never 
to be revived ? Can you compel Congress to adopt your sug- 
gestion? It is not your will, but theirs, that must govern. 
Are you quite certain that your practice agrees with your 
teachings? 

It may interest some who will take the pains to read what 
I write, to learn a few political incidents known to myself 
and others, which I relate merely to increase the evidence of 
my good standing as a Union man, with eminent Unionists, 
at a time when there was some merit in being a Union man. 
True love of the Union is like genuine, heartfelt piety. It 
is serene, uniform, forbearing ; exhibiting itself in every act, 
and, without effort, convinciug all men of its deep sincerity. 
And, what is more, it is independent of the frowns or bland- 
ishment of men. Washington was its impersonation. How 
few were capable of appreciating his grand patriotism ; his 
exalted love of country. 

I first saw and heard read the celebrated Crittenden com- 
promise resolutions in December, 1860. I was invited to a 
room in Brown's Hotel, Washington, and there met some 
half-dozen moderate, but prominent members of the Repub- 
lican party, I being the only Southern man present. Our 
host, a distinguished statesman and accomplished lawyer of 
Indiana, then in attendance on the Supreme Court, produced 
the famous "peace offering" in his own elegant hand, and 



13 

submitted it to the gentlemen present for their consideration 
and criticism. This noble man still lives, pledged never to 
accept political office. Should this chance to meet his eye, 
he will not fail to recall the scene. I mention this to show 
the esteem in which I was held by these national men, and 
the interest I felt for the preservation of the Union. 

I recall, with melancholy interest, my last interview with 
my Indiana friend; It was by my own fireside in Washing- 
ton. Georgia has seceded, and I, against the advice of true 
and sagacious friends, was preparing to return to my home. 
Both of us were mourning the folly and madness that me- 
naced the peace of the country. He drew a vivid picture of 
the inevitable conflict he saw approaching, and feelingly 
suggested that his son and mine might meet in deadly strife, 
strangers to each other, and one of them might fall by the 
other's hand. It may have been prophetic. Few can ever 
know what I have lost, and fewer still will care. Many 
think I was but too fortunate in preserving my own far- 
spent life. I appeal not to man for sympathy, and yet I have 
met it, when it fell upon my crushed heart as the gentle dew 
on withering flowers. It came not from the hearts of un- 
feeling politicians. Oh, secession ; secession ! " Thy bruise 
is incurable, and thy wound is grievous," and yet thoulivest 
unrebuked in Georgia. 

A talented Georgian writes me in regard to the election of 
Senators, as follows : " Taking this fact in connection with 
the tone of our press, and the utterances of our public speak- 
ers, it may well be said of us, as was said of the Bourbons, 
' They have learned nothing, and forget nothing by revolu- 
tion. One would think that the secessionists were the vic- 
torious party if one did not know the contrary." 

One of the most talented men in America said, in a speech 
soon after the close of the war: "We have disposed of the 
doctrine of secession by the bayonet ; that acute suggestion, 
that though the State has not the right to secede, yet that 
the citizens are bound to obey their State, and that war by 
the State is not treason in them." Do you not so regard 
the doctrine, gentlemen ? If you do not, will you favor the 
public with your definition. 

That child of genius — that accomplished scholar and ora- 
tor, and almost unrivalled master of the English language, 
Henry Winter Davis, said, in substance, that he knew of 
but three devoted Union men iu all the South, who bowed 
their heads to the storm in silence, allowing it to sweep over 



14 

them. He instanced the venerated name of Pettigru, and 
added " the honored names of Joshua Hill and John Minor 
Botts." Whatever else may be said of him, it will scarcely 
be objected to Mr. Davis that he was in the slightest degree 
tolerant of secession or disunion. Do you not remember how 
the disunion press of the State used to assail me for the com- 
plimentary vote I gave him for Speaker? 

I trust I do no injustice to the memory of one of the wisest 
and best men I ever knew, in referring to one of his treasured 
letters to me, bearing date the 28th of January, 1862. My 
distinguished and learned friend, though twenty years my 
senior, was born and reared on a tract of land adjoining 
my birth-place, in Abbeville District, South Carolina. Our 
fathers settled on adjoining places about the year 1790. The 
two families are still represented on the old farms. I was 
fortunate enough to enjoy the great man's confidence and 
friendship. This was more than power or wealth could have 
purchased. I never knew a patriot so unselfish, or a great 
thinker and ripe scholar so unpretending. In his matchless 
simplicity, he writes from his home in Charlestown : " I re- 
ceived a very agreeable surprise by yours of the 22d. It was 
not surprising that you should think of me, for we have drunk 
of the same brook, and have run barefoot over the same hills, 
not to forget one another, but I could hardly think that there 
was a single man left in the whole South that agreed so much 
with my opinions. I am fain to join in the clown's soliloquy 
sometimes, and reproach myself for following conscience, 
seeing the fiend gives the better counsel. For both town and 
country, old and young, on this side of the river, glorify 
themselves for everything good and great as secessionists, and 
rail against Yankees as the meanest and wickedest of the hu- 
man race, for disagreeing with them in the destruction of 
the Union. In this rebellion against the Union, women and 
parsons are conspicuous for their zeal and acclamations. The 
most ferocious feelings are not only avowed, but boasted of, 
and nothing isrespectable but desperation. Why, a member 
of the legislature declared exultingly in the house that he was 
thankful for the fire, as it would make it easier to burn the 
rest of the town if the Yankees were likely to become masters 
of it. 

" These things savor of madness more than passion. If 
they are to be believed, they would rather that South Caro- 
lina share the fate of Sodom than that secession should suffer 
a defeat, or even a temporary reverse. The detestation ex- 



15 

pressed for our late countrymen finds a parallel only in the 
contempt which the Chinese feel for the English and French 
barbarians. I am satisfied that this madness must, in time, 
give way to depression and lassitude, but how long it will 
last, no one can tell." 

" The Northern mind seems to be almost as deeply stirred 
as that of the South ; and though the South as natural fight- 
ers are more than a match for equal numbers, the prepon- 
derance of the North will encourage them to keep up the 
contest a long time, and, in the end, they may learn to fight, 
in which, at present, they are sadly at fault. So were the 
Russians when the Swedes gave them their first lessons." 

There is a good deal more of conjecture as to the probable 
future, much of which has become history. He concludes 
with these sadly prophetic words : " The future is doubly 
dark. The most probable issue for both sides is, that instead 
of the military being subordinate to the civil authority, the 
revolution will end in the military having it all their own 
way. My hopes are subdued, but so are my fears. I don't 
expect to live to see the end, and am glad of it." He had 
his wish, and James Louis Petigru, no great while after- 
ward, slept with his fathers. Would he have held such con- 
verse, at such a time, with any but a trusted friend of the 
Union ? His whole life was one of consistent devotion to the 
Government of his country. 

I have great respect for candor, even when coupled with 
fanaticism ; hence my high regard for my friends Milledge 
L. Bonham and James L. Pon, both ultra disunionists and 
ardent in the cause of rebellion ; both scorning to hide away 
in bomb-proof positions, and not content to display their valor 
by clamoring for war, testified their sincerity by exposing 
themselves on " well stricken fields." 

You charge that I became a candidate for Governor, and 
" tried to get an office, the obtaining of which must have 
made it impossible for him (me) to take the oath/' &c. I 
was no more a candidate for Governor than was Mr. Stephens 
a candidate for Senator. I deny trying to be elected. I re- 
fused to review the administration of Governor Brown, and 
to condemn it, when assured that by so doing I could con- 
centrate upon myself the opposition to him, and thereby 
keep down a third candidate. " Solitary and alone," on the 
floor of Congress, I had censured his unlawful seizure of the 
U. S. Arsenal at Augusta, and Fort Pulaski, near Savannah. 
The secession convention afterwards approved his action, and 
thereby rebuked me. With which of us did you sympathize ? 



16 

In permitting my naine to be voted for, I only hoped to 
form the nucleus of a Southern conservative party, opposed 
to secession and war, and favoring peace. I called four or 
five of my most trusted friends living in this town and 
vicinity, all of whom yet live, to bear me witness that, 
under no possible circumstances, would I ever take an oath 
to support the Constitution of the Confederate States, or the 
government or laws thereof. We examined the official oath 
of the Governor, and concluded that, to hirn, as the civil 
and military head of the State, the oath for civil officers 
only did not apply. And if it had, and I could have been 
elected, I would have spurned it. In doing so, I should 
have made more character than I could by filling the office. 
The gentlemen to whom I refer are men of high character, 
and "have done the State some service." lam proud to 
claim them as my friends, and they are proud of my princi- 
ples and my course, which few so well understand. 

The secession and war press denounced my letter and its 
author. How many of you defended the letter, and vindica- 
ted me ? The lovers of peace, and the honest haters of dis- 
union, voted for me, when not driven from the polls by se- 
cession bullies. Some of you are late in discovering my 
strong anti-reconstruction sentiments. How many of you 
denounced me as a Unionist-reconstructionist, and every- 
thing objectionable, politically? Which of you made 
speeches against me? Did Union men complain of me? 
No ; they rejoiced at the opportunity of voting for a man in 
whom they trusted. Your course has made them only more 
devoted to me. They constantly testify their regard for me. 
They remember fondly that I labored to prevent disunion, 
and that I never " bowed the knee to Baal." 

But be consoled, gentlemen ; you have the majority with 
you. With but a few exceptions, secessionists and war-men 
sustain your action, and openly exult at the overthrow of 
James Johnson and myself. 

I declined all invitations to visit the armies, or to speak 
at any point. I made no defence to the assaults upon me, 
charging me with love of the Union and opposition to the 
war. In my letter, I declared the utter impossibility of re- 
storing the lost Union as it ivas. I do not see that it has 
been returned to us unchanged. It possessed many features 
calculated to endear it to the people everywhere, that have 
been sadly altered by war. I rejoice that it cannot be said 
of me, that I, in any manner, assisted in producing these in- 



17 

novations. How many of you admire my course in refusing 
to vote for any officer of the Confederate Government? Do 
you not think that it would have been more praiseworthy to 
have even sought place under it? How many, and which of 
you, made speeches and arguments to soldiers to deter them 
from voting for me ? 

In a gallant regiment, to which some of you belonged, and 
of which six or seven companies went from my old congres- 
sional district — one of them from my own county, composed 
of the sons of my neighbors and friends, and of my own son — 
I received one single vote. That was cast by an independent, 
high-souled private, who dared to do what he conceived to 
be his duty. Many of these brave soldiers had been accus- 
tomed to vote for me for Congress, even against the advice 
of Mr. Stephens and Mr. Toombs, but on this trying occa- 
sion they could not incur the odium. They liked me person- 
ally, as I believe some of you do, but thought I loved the 
Union il not wisely, but too well." 

I lost the support of the only very influential paper that 
advocated, for a time, my election, by promptly refusing, 
when required, to say that I would not consent to live under 
the same Government with the people of the free States. 
The election went by, and though only second in the race, 
as in the recent one, I preserved the respect of my friends 
and of myself. Success is not the true test of merit. 

" The rank is but the guinea's stamp. 
The man's the gowd for a' that." 

Lest the President should be imposed upon, some patriotic 
Georgians furnished him with a copy. of my letter. He 
understands it — he understands us all. He knows what sus- 
pended loyalty means, and knows how to appreciate new-born 
devotion to the Uni'on. He knows, as well as you do, that 
Mr. Davis voted in the Senate Committee for the Crittenden 
compromise, and, of course, that he was opposed to disunion. 
This, you contend, makes a good Union record. Do you 
doubt, gentlemen, that the President or the Senate would 
have approved the election of Mr. Davis to the Senate by the 
legislature of Mississippi? What objection could be urged 
against it? Does any occur to you ? Has he not talents 
and a large experience to commend him ? And was not he, 
too, one of the prophets? 

It occurs to me to inquire of j^ou, what apology you pro- 
pose to make for the very inconsiderable rote you gave the 



President's provisional Governor, James Johnson, for Sena- 
tor? In your zeal for the Union, how could you forget his 
record? What had he done to shake your confidence in his 
loyalty? Was it his excess of kindness in recommending 
applicants for pardon to the President, that you intended to 
rebuke? His fine talents and personal worth were not un- 
known to you. Can it be that you intend to reprimand him 
for accepting the appointment of Governor? 

You are all satisfied that I am powerless in Georgia, but you 
are not so well assured that your condemnation of me is de- 
structive of my influence at Washington. It becomes neces- 
sary, now, to insure that. You may succeed in convincing 
those who control the Government that the organization of a 
stupendous rebellion to overthrow the Constitutional Gov- 
ernment of your country, the sacrifice of hundreds of thou- 
sands of valuable lives lost in trying to maintain the supreme 
authority, together with the slaughtered thousands cruelly 
seduced or driven to take arms as insurgents, is a light af- 
fair. You may, by ingenious argumentation, prove that the 
men most to be trusted by the Government are those most 
prominently and conspicuously identified with the rebel gov- 
ernment ; the men whose names must live in history , more 
on account of the high places they occupied in the rebel gov- 
ernment than for anything they ever did in the service of 
their lawful Government. But when you succeed in all this, 
then cover over with a thick veil the niches in your capitol 
that may contain the statutes of Washington, Jackson, Web- 
ster and Clay, and forbid your countrymen to look upon them 
again. Then will the revolution prove a triumph, and the 
Union become a phantom. 

Respectfully, 

JOSHUA HILL. 

Madison, Ga., February 10. 1866. ' 



TO THE PRESS. 



Such of you as have published the letter of Mr. Stephens' 
friends will do an act of justice, and of politeness, also, by 
publishing the above. 
1 J. H. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 703 409 8 



